On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:03:35AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> I have been looking and asking around, and seems like we should
> actually leave FIQs enabled when the tick is frozen and only disable
> them within enter_freeze.
>
> My understanding is that FIQ handlers are extremely limited in what
On 17 April 2015 at 16:08, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 03:37:19PM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> >> I don't know what FIQs are. :-)
>> >
>> > In short, fast IRQs, it is a separate IRQ line handled as a separate
>> > exception source with some private (banked) regi
On 17 April 2015 at 17:02, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 17 April 2015 at 16:08, Lorenzo Pieralisi
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 03:37:19PM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> >> I don't know what FIQs are. :-)
>>> >
>>> > In short, fast IRQs, it is a separate IRQ line handled as a se
On 17 April 2015 at 16:08, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 03:37:19PM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> >> I don't know what FIQs are. :-)
>> >
>> > In short, fast IRQs, it is a separate IRQ line handled as a separate
>> > exception source with some private (banked) regi
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 03:37:19PM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
[...]
> >> I don't know what FIQs are. :-)
> >
> > In short, fast IRQs, it is a separate IRQ line handled as a separate
> > exception source with some private (banked) registers that minimize
> > registers
> > saving/restoring. They a
On 10 April 2015 at 12:08, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 10:19:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 09, 2015 11:18:25 AM Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> > On 04/08/2015 01:55 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:54:38AM +0100, Tomeu Vizos
On Thursday, April 09, 2015 11:18:25 AM Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 04/08/2015 01:55 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:54:38AM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >> This callback is expected to do the same as enter() only that all
> >> non-wakeup IRQs are expected to be disabled.
>
On 04/08/2015 01:55 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:54:38AM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> This callback is expected to do the same as enter() only that all
>> non-wakeup IRQs are expected to be disabled.
>
> This is not true or at least it is misworded. The enter_freeze()
On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 11:54:38AM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> This callback is expected to do the same as enter() only that all
> non-wakeup IRQs are expected to be disabled.
This is not true or at least it is misworded. The enter_freeze() function
is expected to return from the state with IRQs
This callback is expected to do the same as enter() only that all
non-wakeup IRQs are expected to be disabled.
It will be called when the system goes to suspend-to-idle and will
reduce power usage because CPUs won't be awaken for unnecessary IRQs.
Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso
Cc: Rafael J. Wysock
10 matches
Mail list logo